Enriquez et al v. Interstate Group, LLC et al

Filing 42

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF re 41 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Shawn Luteyn, Quinn Colmenero, Interstate Group, LLC, Jose Enriquez. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/12/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

JOSE ENRIQUEZ and QUINN COLMENERO,
individually and on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated,

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No.: 4:11-cv-05155-YGR
ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

Plaintiffs,
vs.

12
13
14

INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC; SHAWN LUTEYN;
and DOES 1 to 50,
Defendants.

15
16
17

On July 6, 2012, the Parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Plaintiffs'

18

Interrogatory No. 2, which requested the names, mailing addresses, and phone numbers of putative

19

class members. Dkt. No. 41, "Joint Discovery Letter Brief" ("JDLB"). Defendants concede that such

20

information must ultimately be provided but believe an "opt out" or "Pioneer" notice should first be

21

sent to individuals whose information it must provide. Id. at 3; see Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v.

22

Superior Court, 40 Cal. 4th 360 (2007). Defendant further requests that names and contact

23

information provided in response to the interrogatory be "attorneys' eyes only." JDLB at 3.

24

Plaintiffs have conceded that they need only names and mailing addresses of putative class

25

members; they do not seek telephone numbers. Id. at 4. In light of this concession, the Court finds

26

Pioneer-style notices to be unnecessary. See In re Autozone Wage & Hour Empl. Practices Litig., No.

27

10-md-02159 CRB (JSC), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132973 at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011) ("[T]he

28

Court is not persuaded that [disclosure of names and addresses of putative class members] constitutes

1

such a serious invasion of privacy that an "opt out" procedure is required, at least where Plaintiffs

2

intend to use the information to contact the putative class member by mail."), Alvarez v. Hyatt

3

Regency Long Beach, No. CV 09-03791-GAF (VBKx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99281 at *5 (C.D.

4

Cal. March 2, 2010) ("[T]he Court is not persuaded that an opt-out system is necessary, both for

5

pragmatic and legal reasons.").

6

The Court likewise denies Defendant's request for attorneys' eyes only protection. However,

7

this order is without prejudice to any subsequent motion for a protective order made upon a showing

8

of competent evidence that Plaintiffs have made, or will make, improper use of putative class

9

members' names and/or addresses.

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to answer Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 2, minus phone
contact information.

12

This Order Terminates Docket Number 41.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: July 12,2012
15

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2